The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce

www.freshproduce.org.au
info@freshproduce.org.au
PO Box 636, Collins Street West, Victoria 8007
The role of
packaging for
Australian
fresh produce
Authors
Dr Simon Lockrey
Associate Professor
Karli Verghese
Dr Jessica Danaher
Dr Lisa Newman
Victor Barichello
Peer review
Dr Lilly Da Gama
REPORT

The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce 2
RMIT University and Empauer would like to thank all external
parties for their time and help providing data and industry insights.
We would like to thank members of the Australian Fresh Produce
Alliance for their participation and expertise throughout the project.
Particular thanks are extended to our research manager, Allister
Hill, and research assistants Gordon Young, Emily Ballantine-
Brody, Ruby Chan, and Michael Flood for helping with data
collection and synthesis.
Finally we would also like to thank our peer reviewer Dr Lilly
DaGama, for her time in assessing our research, and providing
feedback on improvements to the work.
Acknowledgements

Table of contents
Abstract4
1.0 Introduction 6
1.1 Food Loss and Waste 7
1.2 The value of providing access to fresh produce 8
1.3 What is packaging, and the role it plays in
reducing food waste? 9
1.3.1 Packaging impacts versus food impacts:
The case for product protection 10
1.3.2 End of life waste management of packaging 12
1.3.3 Role of plastic packaging for fresh produce 12
1.3.4 Plastic packaging can extend shelf life
with effective cold chain management 15
1.3.5 MAP can be beneficial for food quality 15
1.3.6 MAHP and AP for moisture control 16
1.3.7 Consumer behaviour determining food
waste: packaging can play a role 16
1.3.8 It’s a wrap: Packaging effects summary
for fresh produce waste and loss 17
2.0 Project scope 18
3.0 Project methodology 20
3.1 Life cycle mapping 21
3.2 Laboratory testing of fresh produce 22
3.3 Peer review 24
4.0 Results 25
4.1 Tomatoes (Small snack pack) 26
4.1.1 Life cycle mapping 26
4.1.2 Shelf life expectancy with
and without packaging 27
4.1.3 Food waste, and impact of packaging
on food waste 28
4.1.4 Impact of packaging on sensory aspects 28
4.2 Mushrooms (Cup) 29
4.3 Raspberries and blueberries 32
4.4 Leafy salads (‘Ready to eat’ loose salad mix) 37
4.5 Cucumbers (Small pack) 40
4.6 Cos Lettuces (Twin pack) 44
4.7 Bananas (Kids pack) 47
4.8 Apples and pears 50
5.0 Discussion 55
5.1 Food waste discussion 56
5.2 Sensory discussion 58
6.0 Recommendations 60
6.1 Increased measurement of food waste
is urgently needed 61
6.2 Continuous optimisation of cold
chain management 61
6.3 Leveraging good relationships for packaging
optimisation61
6.4 Education of consumers on the role of packaging 61
6.5 The circular economy is an opportunity 61
6.6 Consumer waste levels need more clarity 61
6.7 Packaging to maintain food safety needs
further research 62
6.8 Packaging can be useful for sensory aspects 62
6.9 Sensory issues need further research 62
7.0 Conclusion 63
8.0 References 65
Appendix A 69

Globally, it is estimated that over US$1.2 trillion of food is lost
or wasted across the food supply chain, equivalent to 1.6 billion
tons of food per annum.
“In Australia, it is estimated that $20 billion
worth of food is lost or wasted per annum, ...”
an estimated 7.3 million tonnes across the entire Australian
supply and consumption chain.
Fresh produce is a vital component of human health. Yet many
Australian adults fail to meet national guidelines on fresh produce
consumption, risking adverse health effects. Therefore, it is
imperative for strategies to be deployed which ensure access
for consumers to fresh, nutritious food, rather than allowing it
to be wasted.
Packaging plays an important role in the integrity and protection
of food as it travels through supply chains from farm, through
retail, to plate.
“The trade-off between food waste and
packaging is a delicate balance; more
packaging can result in less food waste
and therefore less impacts.”
The impact of this extra packaging must also be considered to
develop the optimal packaging-to-food ratio.
In light of these issues, the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance
(AFPA), made up of 14 of Australia’s key fresh produce growers
and suppliers, sought to provide key stakeholders with an
objective and evidence-based understanding of the value that
packaging provides within the life cycle of fresh produce. AFPA
engaged Empauer and RMIT University to examine the role
of packaging in minimising food waste whilst ensuring quality
produce reaches consumers.
RMIT University is one of Australia’s largest Universities and
is considered a leader in technology, design, global business,
communication, global communities, health solutions and
urban sustainable futures. Empauer is a leading sustainability
consultancy focussed on providing organisations with information
to make better decisions, convert those decisions to actions,
and deliver the business outcomes they desire.
The project was specifically concerned with the following:
• Mapping the life cycle of 10 fresh produce items, both with
and without packaging. Specifically, this included describing
the food supply chains, and projecting/estimating the shelf
life of produce which is extended with packaging, compared
to the shelf life without packaging i.e. sold loose.
• Describing product diverted from waste because of packaging,
and product going to waste because of no packaging.
Data for the research was collected from literature, stakeholder
interviews, company documents, correspondence and laboratory
testing. The data was analysed through a combination of
qualitative and quantitative methods. The resultant research
was peer reviewed by Dr. Lilly Da Gama from the University
of Portsmouth. The
“... results reveal a consensus that packaging
is designed to protect products from farm
to retail.”
Packaging is aimed at limiting food waste particularly from
packing to the retail shelf. It is primarily designed to provide;
mechanical protection in handling and transport; respiration
management; gas management i.e. for ethylene; food safety
aspects; and limiting access to stop people touching produce
to reduce bruising or damage. As such, produce is generally
delivered to consumers intact. According to producers, such
measures provide more chance for the food to: get to market
in an acceptable condition; be purchased; and be consumed,
rather than be discarded at some stage in the supply chain.
Cold chains were identified as integral to preserving fresh
produce during supply. The interaction bewteen packaging
and the cold chain was also seen as critical to extend shelf
life and minimise waste in many instances.
It was clear that new packaging formats assisted in the
establishment of new markets for previously out of specification
produce, such as oddly shaped or smaller produce. Packaging
played a role in getting this product to market and aligning that
product with target audiences to further reduce food waste.
Retail planning and forecasting was a big factor in how much
cultivated product is used, so that optimising and aligning
production to retail ordering is essential.
There was a tension between packaging aimed at extending
shelf life and consumer demand for perceived environmentally
conscious packaging materials i.e. post-consumer recycling
content, high recycling rates, or bio based/ compostability.
Dealing with such tensions is challenging for producers.
It was evident that consumer and industry education, about
the balance between packaging that reduces the environmental
impacts of food waste, compared to reducing packaging
environmental impacts, is both lacking and overdue. Interviewees
also revealed that very little is known about the role that packaging
plays, in extending the life of food, when stored by consumers
at home. This may be an opportunity for producers and retailers
to engage more deeply with their customers about such issues.
Sensory changes varied across 10 categories of produce
observed in laboratory conditions. Sensory aspects relate to
dimensions that consumers ‘sense’, such as when they touch,
see or smell a food. Some categories maintained sensory
quality in packaging, whilst others showed little difference in
quality regardless of packaging or not.
Abstract

• Consumer waste levels need more clarity:
There is little known about consumer food
waste in the home, in particular, the role
packaging plays in reducing/avoiding waste.
Research should examine if packaging features,
designed to reduce waste, are misunderstood.
• Packaging to maintain food safety needs further research:
For ‘ready to eat’ produce, packaging assists in food safety.
Further research is required to clarify the value of packaging
for safety, including any food waste reduction attributes.
• Packaging can maintain sensory aspects: From
observational data collected, packaging is vital to maintain
sensory properties and quality for some produce categories.
• Sensory issues need more research: Whether packaging
extends the shelf life from a sensory perspective requires
further investigation. Further work would require testing with
a sample of consumers representing statistical significance
i.e. across the Australian population.
Future investigations are warranted to further clarify the role of
packaging in the Australian fresh produce environment. Such
research could determine whether further packaging innovations
should be considered to reduce waste and improve quality.
Recommendations that developed from the research results
are as follows:
• Increased measurement of food waste is urgently needed:
Currently there is little food waste data recorded, which
should be rectified. Data and metrics collected could be
shared across the supply chain to ensure transparency and
effective responses to concerns. This would help highlight
where food waste spikes and facilitate flexibility on actions
needed to address it.
• Continuous optimisation of cold chain management:
Continuing to optimise cold supply chains should be a focus,
and the role packaging plays. This could be an opportunity
of mutual benefit for stakeholders.
• Leveraging good relationships for packaging optimisation:
Constructive planning and ordering that occurs between
supply chain partners, could be leveraged to include more
work on the role of packaging in reducing food waste across
the supply chain. This could result in further extended shelf
life, good product protection, and consumer benefits within
the home.
• Education of consumers on the role of packaging: There is
a gap between what consumers perceive and why packaging
is specified. Education is needed here.
• The circular economy is an opportunity:
Circular economy approaches to packaging
may be beneficial to reduce the stigma that
packaging currently holds with consumers.
This may require partnerships between
producers, retailers, government, researchers
and waste/ logistics organisations. It would
also require education of, or engagement
with, consumers.
Abstract continued

1.0
Introduction
The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce

Packaging plays an important role in the integrity and protection
of food as it travels through supply chains from farm to plate
(Verghese et al., 2015). These benefits are not widely known
to the general public. There is a need to research the link
between food, packaging and waste specifically, to clarify
these relationships.
The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA), made up of
14 of Australia’s key fresh produce growers and suppliers
are seeking to provide stakeholders, namely, retailers,
government and consumers, with an objective and evidence-
based understanding of the value that packaging provides
within the life cycle of fresh fruit and vegetables. To this end,
the AFPA commissioned Empauer and RMIT University to
conduct relevant research, focused on participating producers’
products and their respective supply chains.
The research aimed to examine and understand the role that
packaging fulfils in minimising food waste, and maximising
quality control. The project was specifically concerned with
the following:
• Mapping the life cycle of 10 fresh produce items, both with
and without packaging. Specifically, this included describing
the food supply chains, and projecting/estimating the shelf
life of produce which is extended with packaging, compared
to the shelf life without packaging i.e. sold loose.
• Describing product diverted from waste because of packaging,
and product going to waste because of no packaging.
By using these foci the role retail and logistical packaging
formats provide for the protection and longevity of nominated
fresh produce was investigated. This report details that research.
A novel approach to this research was chosen, by combining
supply chain participant insights with laboratory testing of
fresh produce. For clarity, the contexts across which research
was conducted were farm through to retail environments.
Consumer aspects were only covered through perspectives
provided by some food supply chain participants (rather than
direct consumer data). Such data and contexts assisted in
demonstrating the role of packaging in managing fresh produce
shelf life and food waste.
The discussion section in particular articulates the role
of packaging within broader fresh produce supply chain
contexts. This includes how packaging relates to cold chains,
temperature management, and supply chain collaboration
in providing protection and longevity for fresh produce. We
conclude by recommending how the report should be used,
and any actions that may be pertinent as a result of the research.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Food Loss and Waste
Food loss and waste represent a misuse of resources that
are used in producing food, with the financial and food waste
volume impact being significant. Globally, it is estimated that
over US$1.2 trillion of food is lost or wasted across the food
supply chain per annum, equivalent to 1.6 billion tons of
food (Hegnsholt et al., 2018). In Australia, it is estimated that
$20 billion worth of food is lost/wasted per annum (Lapidge,
2015). New figures recently released estimate that 7.3 million
tonnes annually of food were lost and wasted across the entire
Australian supply and consumption chain (298 kilograms per
capita) (ARCARDIS et al., 2019).
Food loss and waste occurs at all stages of the supply chain
and are caused by different driving forces (Flanagan et al.,
2018, Gustavsson et al., 2011, Hegnsholt et al., 2018, DoEE,
2017). The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the
United Nations (UN) defines food loss as any food that is lost
in the supply chain between the producer and market. This
may be due to weather, customer specifications, inventory
management and ordering changes, damage during transport,
breaks in cold chain management or improper storage.
Food waste concerns the discard or non-food usage of
food that is safe and nutritious for human consumption due
to confusion about various factors including date labelling,
over purchasing, incorrect storage, and preparing more
food than is required for consumption (Gustavsson et al.,
2011, Flanagan et al., 2018). The United Nations Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) Target 12.3 aims to ‘by 2030, halve
per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels
and reduce food losses along production and supply chains,
including post-harvest losses’ (Flanagan et al., 2018, UN, 2019,
Wikström et al., 2018).
Approximately 56% of total food loss and waste occurs in the
developed world—North America, Oceania, Europe, and the
industrialized Asian nations of China, Japan, and South Korea
(Lipinski et al., 2013). Within this region more than 40% of
the food loss and waste occur at retail and consumer levels
(Gustavsson et al., 2011, Lipinski et al., 2013). For fruits and
vegetables in particular, 15-30% is wasted as it is discarded by
the consumer (Gustavsson et al., 2011).
“Studies have shown that fresh fruit and
vegetables are the most perishable food items.
Fresh fruit and vegetables also account for the
highest share of food losses globally ...”
and are usually among the most wasted items, followed by
bakery goods, dairy products, meat and fish (Manalili et al., 2014).

High nutrient foods such as fresh fruit and vegetables are
also beneficial to human health in playing a role in preventing
oxidation and inflammation, lowering lipid effects, and providing
beneficial effects on blood pressure (Slavin and Lloyd, 2012,
Barrett and Lloyd, 2012). Studies also suggest that regular
consumption of fruits and vegetables may play an important
role in preventing chronic disease, including cardiovascular
disease (Crowe et al., 2011), type II diabetes (Carter et al.,
2010), dementia (Hughes et al. 2010), and some cancers
(Barrett and Lloyd, 2012, Nutrition Australia, 2018, Key et al.,
2004). However, many humans are not getting the right nutrition
or the necessary amount so are unable to benefit (FAO, 2018c);
this is the case in Australia where 96% of the population eat
less than half of the WHO recommended daily intake (Nutrition
Australia, 2018).
Despite the benefits, consumers do not take in sufficient
quantities of fruit and vegetables. The latest National Health
Survey found that just over half (51.3%) of Australian adults met
the guidelines for the recommended minimum 2 daily serves of
fruit (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019). However 50 grams
of dried fruit was considered acceptable as 1 serve of ‘fruit’,
despite 30 grams of which being recommended to eat “only
occasionally” according to The Australian Guide to Healthy
Eating (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2013).
The National Health Survey also found
that 1 in 13 Australian adults (7.5%) met
the guidelines for serves of vegetables
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019),
whilst only 1 in 20 (5.4%) met both the
fruit and the vegetable recommendations
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019).
These rates have remained fairly consistent over time
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019). Thus, there appears
to be a local deficiency in people consuming the fresh
produce they need to stay healthy.
An inadequate intake of fruits and vegetables, with a
concomitant increase in consumption of processed foods
can subsequently lead to an insufficient intake of essential
vitamins and minerals. This may increase the risk of adverse
health effects associated with micronutrient deficiencies. As
an example, over recent decades the rates of chronic disease,
including type 2 diabetes, have been increasing both in adults
and children (Obesity Policy Coalition, 2018). It is predicted
that, by 2023, health expenditure for type 2 diabetes will have
risen $1.4 billion to $7 billion per year, due mostly to increasing
weight gain (National Health and Medical Research Council,
2013). Also, if current Australian trends continue, an estimated
83% of men and 75% of women aged over 20 years will be
overweight or obese by 2025 (National Health and Medical
Research Council, 2013). Therefore,
There is significant activity in Australia around addressing food
loss and waste across industry, government, not for profits
and consumers. In November 2017, the federal government
launched the National Food Waste Strategy which is aligned to
the UN SDG 12.3 (DoEE, 2017) and sets a path forward toward
2030. In 2018, the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research
Centre commenced bringing together industry, research
and the community to capitalise on Australia’s food waste
opportunities (Fight Food Waste CRC, 2019). Collaboration
within countries and around the world has also identified many
opportunities to reduce this loss and waste. These include
policy support, business improvements, financing, market
development, education and behaviour change (DoEE, 2017,
ReFED, 2016). As a result, food waste reduction has become
a growing field, in Australia and on a global scale.
1.2 The value of providing access
to fresh produce
Good nutrition is something that benefits all people, which
can be provided through fresh produce. The World Health
Organisation (WHO) has recommended adults consume 400g
of fruits and vegetables daily (WHO, 2003). In the Australian
context, the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommends
that Australian adults (aged 19 years and over) eat a minimum
of 2 serves of fruit a day and 5-6 serves of vegetables a day
(National Health and Medical Research Council, 2013). A
standard serve of fruit weighs approximately 150g and can
encompass a fruit of “medium” size (for example, apple,
banana, orange or pear) or 2 “small” fruits (for example,
apricots, kiwi fruits or plums) (National Health and Medical
Research Council, 2013). A standard serve for vegetables
weighs approximately 75g and can encompass ½ cup
cooked green or orange vegetables (for example, broccoli,
spinach, carrots or pumpkin) or 1 cup green leafy or raw
salad vegetables (National Health and Medical Research
Council, 2013). The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating also
recommends that individuals “try to choose different types
and colours of vegetables to make sure they have enough
of all necessary micronutrients” (National Health and Medical
Research Council, 2013). This fresh produce plays a crucial
role in health and well-being.
Fruits and vegetables have historically held a place in dietary
guidelines because of their concentrations of essential vitamins
and minerals, which humans are unable to synthesize themselves
(Slavin and Lloyd, 2012). Essential vitamins include (but are not
limited to) A, C, E and B group vitamins. These play a variety
of important roles in the human body, including maintaining
healthy eyes and skin, acting as antioxidants to protect cells
from damage, and contributing to healthy reproduction and
growth (Ryan-Harshman and Aldoori, 2005b). Essential minerals
include (but are not limited to) potassium, magnesium, calcium,
phosphorus and selenium. These also play important roles,
such as maintaining blood pressure and bone health, and
contributing to normal muscle and nerve functioning (Ryan-
Harshman and Aldoori, 2005a).
1.0 Introduction continued

1.3 What is packaging, and the role
it plays in reducing food waste?
Packaging is an integral part of the fresh produce supply chain;
the way packaging is designed has implications through the
food supply chain from product protection, logistical, retail,
food safety, use and ultimately end of life waste management
perspectives. Packaging design requires a collaborative
process that involves finding a solution that fits parties
across the supply chain (Verghese et al., 2015). Critical to
this is for all stakeholders in the food supply chain, from
producers, manufacturers, retailers, packaging, government
and consumers to engage in discussions and a better
understanding of the role that packaging plays in the food
supply chain.
To determine the suitability of packaging for fresh produce, it
is necessary to first understand where packaging is used in the
supply chain, and primary functions packaging serves (Table 1).
The packaging material and packaging format should work
synergistically to create a situation that is conducive to product
protection and good product shelf life as it travels through the
supply chain. To ensure good product protection, an optimal
amount of packaging material needs to be used (Dominic
et al., 2015, Verghese et al., 2015). Insufficient material can
lead to product damage, but extra material can contribute to
unnecessary impacts. There has also been a recent increase
in instances of malicious tampering with fresh produce, for
example in 2018 with the Australian strawberry needle case
being the most prominent. There is a demand to mitigate safety
threats through packaging. For instance, the use of punnets
“...it is important to utilise strategies which
ensure access to food that is nutritious, both
for the individual and in addressing broader
public health issues.”
A primary objective of food production is to ensure a safe
and acceptable product to be delivered to market. Packaging
may serve to transport nutritious produce, such as fruit and
vegetables, safely to consumers all over Australia with minimal
waste. If people are to consume more fruit and vegetables and
in turn reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases, it is
therefore important to provide consumers with a product which
is of a high quality and maximises its shelf life. This pursuit is
diminished if there is food waste. An underutilised solution in
addressing food loss and waste is packaging (Fisher, 2018,
Flanagan et al., 2018, Heller, 2017, ReFED, 2016, Wikström
et al., 2018, Verghese et al., 2015). The effect of packaging on
fresh produce waste and loss will be explored through literature
in the following sections.
Product protection is the primary goal of
packaging (Verghese et al., 2012, Dominic
et al., 2015). Packaging should enable the
safe and efficient supply of produce, therefore
minimising the environmental impacts of
producing, transporting, using and disposing
of those products (Verghese et al., 2012).
Table 1: Types of packaging and their functions
Type Area of supply chain Functions Examples
Primary Packaging Sales, consumer
and retail
Protection, promotion,
convenience, information,
handling, safety
Sales units at the point of purchase in the form
of “shelf-ready” packaging, such as strawberries
in punnets or apples in bags.
Secondary
Packaging
Display
merchandising
Protection, promotion,
convenience, information,
handling, safety
Packaging used at the point of purchase to
contain or present several sales units; it can be
removed from the product without affecting its
characteristics. This includes a display stand
containing individually packaged items.
Tertiary Packaging Distribution and
trading
Protection, information,
handling, safety
Used to facilitate handling and transport of
several sales units or grouped packages in
order to prevent physical handling and transport
damage; does not include road, rail, ship and
airfreight containers.
Industrial Packaging Business to business
setting
Protection, information,
handling, safety
Used for transport and distribution of products
for industrial use.
Source: adapted from (Verghese et al., 2012, p 8).

The packaging impacts cannot be separated
from those of the product, so the product-
packaging system as a whole must be optimised
to minimise negative environmental impacts
(Verghese et al., 2012, Wikström et al., 2018).
For example, if packaging material fails to protect food, then
there will be greater impact associated with the resources that
went into producing that food being wasted and not consumed
(Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2018, Verghese et al., 2012). A more
appropriate material type would also offer protection benefits to
fresh produce, resulting in extended shelf life, less food waste,
and reduced overall carbon impact. The emission effect of
food-to-packaging ratios should also be considered, and they
vary widely depending on the type of food, packaging material,
method of production and transportation for both packaging
and food (Wikström et al., 2018, Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2018,
Fisher, 2018, Heller, 2017, Wever et al., 2007). This is where
life cycle assessment (LCA) tools can assist.
Life cycle management and associated tools for an LCA are
used to generate product environmental life cycle maps and
identify improvement strategies. LCA is a useful way to calculate
the environmental burden of a product-packaging system
(Verghese et al., 2012, Wikström et al., 2018, Wever et al.,
2007) and then work towards the optimisation of the ‘system’
as a whole. Yet LCA needs to be considered on a case by case
basis, owing to the difference between product and packaging
impacts respectively from one food system to another (Williams
and Wikström, 2011). Actions as a result of LCA requires
productive supply chain partnerships to achieve better and long
term environmental benefits that avoid creating new impacts
or ‘burden-shifting’ (Verghese et al., 2012). For instance, when
considering the greenhouse gas emissions of growing and
producing food, with packaging material production and food
waste, packaging when designed appropriately can reduce the
likelihood of food being wasted (Wikström et al., 2018). See
Figure 2 for more on this.
and plastic film makes it easier to identify if a product has
been tampered with. Packaging can also be used to reduce
microbiological contamination. Following sanitation processes,
packaging can also ensure that contamination does not occur
in the supply chain and cause harm to the consumer, which can
be particularly important for fresh cut or ‘ready to eat’ produce
(Farber et al., 1998, Luo et al., 2010).
In summary, according to the literature, packaging performs
specific functions of which there are key features (Lindh et al.,
2016). These are to:
• protect the content of a package: features include
mechanical, barrier and sealing properties;
• facilitate handling: features include openability, resealability;
and
• provide communication: product information and instructions.
1.3.1 Packaging impacts versus
food impacts: The case for product
protection
Sustainability concerns about packaging generally relate to the
direct environmental impacts of production and the end-of-life
treatment options (Lindh et al., 2016). The concerns over these
direct packaging impacts may be addressed through initiatives
to reduce use of excess packaging, designing packaging to
be recyclable or compostable, and developing the appropriate
systems to support such packaging end-of-life waste
management treatment options (Verghese et al., 2012).
While such measures are initiated with well-
meaning intentions, it should be noted that
a reduction in packaging to decrease direct
environmental impact may actually result in an
increase in the indirect environmental impacts,
resulting in no net benefit (Wikström et al., 2016).
The trade-off between food waste and packaging is a delicate
balance; more packaging can result in less food waste and
therefore less impacts, but the impact of this extra packaging
must also be taken into account to develop the most sustainable
packaging-to-food ratio (Verghese et al., 2015). This concept is
shown in Figure 1.
More packaging
Less food waste
Figure 1: Trade-offs between food waste and packaging: (Verghese et al.,
2015, p 605)

This concept is explored in a study, by Wikström et al. (2016),
on the influence of packaging attributes on recycling and food
waste behaviour through an environmental comparison of
2 packaging alternatives. The authors advised that, apart from
direct environmental effects, indirect environmental effects
and behaviour should also be considered in environmental
assessments of packaging, to obtain meaningful results.
Suitable packaging will consider manufacturing impacts,
consumer recycling rates, promote less food waste via ease
of emptying and most importantly, promote less food waste
through design for optimised product protection (Wikström
et al., 2016).
Product protection should be the primary
goal of packaging, as food waste generally
accounts for a larger proportion of the life-cycle
environmental impacts of the food-packaging
system (Verghese et al., 2012).
It has been estimated that, on average, packaging accounts
for only 10% of the total energy inputs for a person’s weekly
consumption of food (INCPEN, 2009). The other 90% of energy
inputs is in food supply, transport, storage and cooking. This
highlights the important role packaging plays in product
protection, making sure this energy input is not wasted.
Sometimes more packaging is required to achieve the goal of
product protection, as in the case of single serve food portions.
While the packaging impacts will be increased, the potential
for food waste is reduced; meaning the overall environmental
impact from the system of food and packaging will decrease
(Verghese et al., 2015). While packaging and the products
contained within will both have environmental impacts, the
most sustainable product-to-packaging ratio often results
where product protection is favoured over reduced packaging
that puts a product at risk of damage.
Consumed
food
100
80
60
40
60
40
20
0
Wasted
food
Meat, fish eggs
Packaging
formats
Consumed
food
100
80
60
40
60
40
20
0
Wasted
food
Dairy
Packaging
formats
Consumed
food
100
80
60
40
60
40
20
0
Wasted
food
Fruits, vegetables nuts
Packaging
formats
Figure 2: Greenhouse gas distribution between food consumed, food wasted and
packaging materials for meat, fish and eggs, dairy and fruits and vegetables for a
4-person household over 1 week. Source: (Wikström et al., 2018, p 4)

attributes on user behaviour with regard to food losses, recycling
and cleaning are more important for the environmental outcome
than the direct impact of the packages.
Each material type used in a packaging system should be
clearly labelled to enable suitable disposal to reduce the waste
impact of improperly disposed packaging due to confusion.
It has been over 40 years since the launch of the first universal
recycling symbol on packaging (World Economic Forum et
al., 2016) and progress has been made since. In 2018 the
Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) (Figure 3) was launched by
Planet Ark and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation
(APCO) in a bid to provide clearer packaging disposal guidelines
to Australian and New Zealand consumers (Planet Ark, 2018,
APCO, 2018). The standardised labels are aimed at providing
easy to understand information for each piece of packaging
thereby removing confusion, increasing recycling, and reducing
waste. The ARL has been used on packaged food items
including dairy and bakery products, with plans to expand
to all packaged food categories (Planet Ark, 2018).
Figure 3 Australasian Recycling Label, an explainer (Planet Ark, 2018)
The use, disposal and recovery of materials from packaging
generate environmental impacts by consuming materials,
energy and water. It is therefore essential to understand
the total environmental burden of the packaging system
by considering the trade-offs between product protection,
packaging environmental footprint, packaging recycling, and
FLW (food loss and waste) to make informed decisions about
packaging for sustainable development (Wikström et al., 2018).
1.3.3 Role of plastic packaging
for fresh produce
Two relevant reports addressing the role of packaging for fresh
fruit and vegetables include The Value of Flexible Packaging in
Extending Shelf Life and Reducing Food Waste (McEwen, 2014)
and Evidence Review: Plastic Packaging and Fresh Produce
(White and Stanmore, 2018). Both of these reports review
currently available evidence of the effects of plastic packaging
on reducing the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables disposed
of domestically and provide an array of produce-specific examples
where packaging is either beneficial or detrimental (See Table 2).
The logical premise is, that if packaging provides consumers
with more time to purchase and store fresh produce there is
more chance food is consumed accordingly.
1.3.2 End of life waste management
of packaging
In Australia, a Senate Inquiry has pushed to phase out single
use plastics nationwide by 2023 (Noyes, 2018). This would
include plastic bags, takeaway containers, plastic lined coffee
cups and chip packets, among other single use food packaging
formats. This is supported by the Australian National Waste
Policy projected to 2030, which seeks to provide a framework
for collective action by businesses, governments, communities
and individuals (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018).
The National Waste policy identifies 5 overarching principles
underpinning waste management in moving toward a new,
circular economy (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018):
• Avoiding waste
• Improving resource recovery
• Increasing use of recycled material and building demand
and markets for recycled products
• Better management of material flows to benefit human
health, the environment and the economy
• Improving information to support innovation, guide
investment and enable informed consumer decisions.
The policy has also set the ambitious target of diverting 80%
of waste from landfill by 2030. National packaging targets have
also been launched. With 70% of plastic packaging set to be
recycled or composted by 2025, and all packaging to have an
average recycled content of 30% by 2025 (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2018, Topsfield, 2018).
Industry moves toward sustainable packaging
and Government initiatives to reduce plastic
waste represent an opportunity for further
research and innovation in the sustainable
packaging field.
However, the potential knock on effects of reducing or
eliminating packaging need to be considered holistically in
relation to product protection and reducing food waste across
the supply chain. Recyclable packaging should be supported
by the development and maintenance of efficient recycling
systems, otherwise accumulated waste can result in negative
environmental impacts that reach far beyond the waste
origin country.
Packaging must also be designed with end-of-life management
in mind (Verghese et al., 2012, World Economic Forum et al.,
2016). The benefits can only be realised when materials are
properly disposed of. It requires both appropriate packaging
material selection and design to ensure compatibility with waste
management systems and relies on consumers to understand
the associated terminology and assumes a willingness to
cooperate with proper disposal. Recyclables put into general
waste represent a resource loss and are a negative waste
impact (World Economic Forum et al., 2016). The study by
Wikström et al. (2016) noted that the influence of packaging

Table 2: Effect of packaging on various fruits and vegetables
Fresh
produce Packaging focus
Shelf life effect
vs. no packaging Study details – methodology Literature Sources
Apples Paper mould trays
and corrugated
fibreboard
Both packaging
interventions limited
spoilage to 6%, but
apples are robust and
fridge storage alone
is beneficial.
(Wijewardane and Guleria, 2013)
observed quality changes in Royal
Delicious apples over a period of
45 days in both cool and ambient
conditions. Sample size was not
mentioned in the original paper
Literature review by
(White and Stanmore,
2018) referencing
(Wijewardane and
Guleria, 2013)
Apples 3 types of
polymeric heat-
shrink film wrap:
HDPE, polyolefin
and “Cryovac”
The film wraps can
extend shelf-life by
2 weeks, with reduced
weight loss from 10.7%
to 2.3% during storage
at ambient temperatures
(Sharma et al., 2013) observed quality
changes over 7 days in wrapped and
unwrapped Royal Delicious apples
at 22-28 °C. Sample size was not
mentioned but the experiment was
repeated 5 times
2018) referencing
(Sharma et al., 2013)
Bananas Polyethylene
plastic bag from
supermarket at
room temperature
Bananas in bags at room
temperature retained
moisture and visual
quality for 3 days
extra. Fridge storage
not recommended as
it caused blackening
Original study conducted by WRAP
over a 3 week period for wrapped
and unwrapped produce in both cool
and ambient conditions.* Sample
size: 24 bananas in bags of 6
WRAP documents:
2018, Johnson et
al., 2008)
Bananas 18kg shelf
ready boxes
Shelf-ready boxes of
loose bananas reduced
damage from repeated
handling
Original interview-based study
conducted by WRAP in 2009, each
interview lasting an hour each.**
Retailers observed damage from
repeated handling of bananas by
customers, and transfer of fruit by
staff from storage boxes to retail shelf
WRAP documents:
2018, Terry et al., 2011)
Bananas Perforated HDPE
and LDPE
Shelf life extended to
36 days with high density
polyethylene and low-
density polyethylene;
unpackaged lasted
15 days (McEwen 2014)
(Hailu et al., 2014) evaluated the
effect of 4 packaging materials on the
shelf life and qualities of Poyo, Giant
Cavendish and Williams I banana
cultivars. The experiment lasted
36 days. 5 fingers were used for
analysis on each sampling date.
Literature review
by (McEwen, 2014)
referencing (Hailu et
al., 2014)
Cucumber Shrink wrapped,
stored at 12°C
Storage at 10°C-12°C
best. Wrapped kept
shelf life for 9 days vs.
unwrapped at 2 days
(Dhall et al., 2012) studied the effect
of shrink wrap storage for maintaining
quality in immature green cucumbers.
The individually wrapped cucumbers
were observed over a period of
15 days. Sample size not mentioned
but damaged fruits were not used.
Cryovac brand D955 film was used
2018) referencing
(Dhall et al., 2012)
Lettuce
(whole)
Sealed
polyethylene
plastic bag from
supermarket
plastic, kept
in fridge
Lettuce was still edible
after 28 days – a 4.5
shelf life difference vs.
loose storage
A copy of the original report by
(Goodman-Smith, 2017) was not
available to review online, and
the literature review by (White and
Stanmore, 2018) provides no details
of methodology. Lettuce variety
not specified
2018) referencing
(Goodman-Smith, 2017)

Fresh
produce Packaging focus
Shelf life effect
vs. no packaging Study details – methodology Literature Sources
Mushrooms
(whole)
Polyethylene
plastic bag from
supermarket, kept
in fridge
Reduced browning for
extra 2 days, but ideally
use a paper bag
and unwrapped produce in both
cool and ambient conditions.
* Sample size: 6 x 0.5kg
WRAP documents:
2018, Johnson et
al., 2008)
Pears Polyethylene
plastic bag from
supermarket,
kept in fridge
Retained freshness
quality for 14 days extra
* Sample size: 6x 1kg
WRAP documents:
2018, Johnson et
al., 2008)
Pears Modified
atmosphere
packaging:
Non-perforated
polypropylene
(PP) in ambient
conditions
performed the
best out of all
tested packaging
materials.
Of all the tested
packaging materials,
PP non-perforated was
the most for extending
the shelf-life for 15
days at the end of the
storage period the fruits
remained closest to their
initial quality at the start
of the storage period.
The PP packaging
retained maximum
firmness in the fruits at
5.16 kgf and the least
amount of ascorbic acid /
vitamin c loss at 49.97%.
(Nath et al., 2012) studied if different
packaging materials could be used to
extend the shelf life of pears. The fruits
were divided into 450-500g groups,
with each pear weighing 85-110g. The
control was kept unwrapped. Tested
packaging formats included low
density polyethylene polypropylene
(PP, 0.025 mm), linear low-density
polyethylene (LLDPE, 0.0125 mm)
and high-density polyethylene (HDPE,
0.025 mm) with or without perforation.
The packages were stored at ambient
condition (25±2 °C and 65.0±5% RH),
with observations every 3 days to a
total of 15 days.
2018) referencing
(Nath et al., 2012)
Strawberries Modified
Atmosphere
Packaging (MAP)
Inhibits mould and rot
if temperatures are
constant, otherwise MAP
can have negative impact
(unspecified) on fruit.
Original interview-based study
conducted by WRAP in 2009, each
interview lasting an hour each.**
WRAP documents:
2018, Terry et al., 2011)
Polyethylene
plastic bag from
supermarket,
kept in fridge
Retained freshness
quality for 10 days
extra and reduced weight
loss from dehydration
over a 3-week period for wrapped
*Sample size: 8 x 0.5kg
WRAP documents:
2018, Johnson et al.,
2008)
Sources: Literature reviews by (White and Stanmore, 2018, McEwen, 2014), with details of research methodology obtained from the referenced original studies where available.
Additional Notes: * WRAP tested ways to extend the storage-life of 17 different fruits and vegetables: lemons, melons, peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, oranges, apples,
strawberry, grapes, kiwifruit, pears, broccoli, carrots, mushrooms, onions, bananas, pineapples. The produce was stored wrapped and unwrapped in both refrigerated
and ambient conditions to observe changes over a 3-week period. Refrigeration was found to be vital in extending the freshness and storage-life for 13 out of 17 produce
types. A conclusion was made that storing loose products in perforated polyethylene (PE) bags – of the type available in supermarket fresh produce aisles – was
beneficial in conserving water and maintaining freshness in most of the products tested. For more details see Johnson et al. (2008).
** WRAP interviewed over 45 UK fresh produce suppliers, wholesalers and retailers. They were asked for their views on the causes, level and destination of waste for the
11 products studied in the research project: strawberries, raspberries, tomatoes, lettuce, apples, onions, potatoes, brassicas, citrus, avocados and bananas. In addition
to the interviews, secondary data on waste was collected by tracking specific fresh produce consignments through the supply chain, providing a valuable sense-check
on the data provided during the interviews. Both data sets were used to inform the final report: see Terry et al. (2011) for more details.

In 2018 AMERIPEN released Quantifying the Value of Packaging
as a Strategy to Prevent Food Waste in America, highlighting
opportunities to implement and design improved packaging
strategies at the consumer level (Fisher, 2018). These three
reports show that packaging tailored specifically to the produce
within, fare better than generic one-form-fits-all packaging.
Additionally, the ReFED (2016) roadmap for reducing food
waste was released in the USA. Of the 27 solutions identified,
there were several packaging related prevention strategies,
being: standardised date labelling; packaging adjustments
such as optimising food packaging size and design to ensure
complete consumption and avoid residual container waste;
and spoilage prevention packaging such as the use of active
intelligent packaging to prolong product freshness and slow
spoilage of perishable foods.
The following section explores literature on packaging
interventions related to fresh produce waste such as the ability
of technological innovations such as Modified Atmosphere
Packaging (MAP), Active Packaging (AP), and thermal indicators
that extend the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables.
1.3.4 Plastic packaging can
extend shelf life with effective
cold chain management
Plastic packaging can be beneficial to shelf life when combined
with cold storage. WRAP UK reports that cold storage of fresh
produce in a polyethylene (PE) bag can help to retain moisture
and freshness, with a significant improvement of more than
3 days for lemons and peppers/capsicum when comparing
packaged vs. unpackaged. The report also suggests that
re-usable airtight containers could offer similar benefits to
single-use polymeric/plastic packaging and extend shelf life
benefits for consumers within the home (White and Stanmore
2018). The benefits of cold storage are also supported by the
report Reducing Food Loss and Food Waste (Lipinski et al., 2013).
While plastic packaging can assist in protecting food, there is
a flip side. Poor cold chain management of produce packaged
in non-permeable plastic film can promote accelerated ripening
and degradation due to trapped respiration gasses and moisture,
resulting in higher spoilage rates (FAO, 2018a, FAO, 2018b). This is
demonstrated by packaging case studies found in the literature:
• Shelf life issues were observed in tomatoes packed in sealed
polyethylene bags. The tomatoes were not stored at a suitably
low temperature, leading to build-up of respiratory heat and
gases (FAO, 2018a, FAO, 2018b).
• Shelf life issues were observed in tomatoes packed on
polystyrene foam trays sealed with stretch wrap. The
tomatoes were displayed under refrigerated conditions, but
condensation often occurred due to temperature fluctuations,
leading to pathological problems in the produce (FAO,
2018a, FAO, 2018b).
• Shelf life issues were observed in mushrooms packed
in polyethylene bags stored at 22°C. After 4 days the
mushrooms were discarded. Trapped condensation had
resulted in rot lesions. Packaged mushrooms stored in
the refrigerator had an extra 4 days of shelf life (White
and Stanmore, 2018).
Maintaining storage at an appropriately low temperature
is therefore key for maintaining freshness of fresh produce
packaged in plastic. This is further supported by (White and
Stanmore 2018), with an average of 7-14 days of extra shelf
life reported for produce stored at 5° compared to 22°C.
1.3.5 MAP can be beneficial for
food quality
Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) has been recommended
by various organisations such as the Food and Agricultural
Organisation of the United Nations and US Flexible Packaging
Association as a way to minimize physiological disorders
in fresh fruits, thereby minimising fresh produce loss and
waste (FAO, 2018a, FAO, 2018b, McEwen, 2014). The use of
modified atmosphere packaging has been documented since
the late 1970s as a way to improve the shelf life of fresh fruits
and vegetables by regulating humidity and concentrations of
certain gasses (McEwen, 2014, Zagory and Kader, 1988). MAP
systems are commonly constructed from permeable polymeric
films, where optimised gas permeability leads to increased
shelf life.
MAP systems can also benefit fruit and vegetable shelf-life
by tailoring optimal gas concentrations of oxygen (O2),
nitrogen (N2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. MA packaging
that reduces O22 levels and increases CO2 levels can assist
in delaying fruit ripening, reduce respiration and ethylene
production rate, and also slow down various compositional
changes associated with ripening, such as softening (McEwen,
2014, Zagory and Kader, 1988). Beneficial effects were
achieved with a gas atmosphere of 0.5% O2 with 10% CO2 for
fresh cut carrots, 3% O2 with 10% CO2 for fresh-cut “Iceberg”
lettuce, and 1–3.8% O2 with 3-6% CO2 for fresh-cut “Savoy”
lettuce (Francis et al., 2012). Cut ‘Bartlett’ pears held at –1°C in
an atmosphere of 2% O2 with 98% N2 had a longer shelf-life than
those obtained from fruit held in open air (Ansah et al., 2018).
Conversely certain fruits benefit from higher oxygen levels. High
O2 atmospheres improved sensory shelf-life of raspberries and
strawberries by inhibiting the development of mould (Francis et
al., 2012). Storage of Rocha pears stored at super atmospheric
oxygen conditions of 100% O2 at 5°C for 30 days was effective
in delaying pericarp browning and sensorial losses of fresh-cut
fruit, with further benefits of a 7-day shelf-life extension (Ansah
et al., 2018)
Other examples of the effects of MAP systems have on specific
produce types may be found in Table 2 (on page 13).

Conversely mushrooms packed in impermeable polypropylene
bags retained moisture at the expense of developing rot
and off-odours (White and Stanmore, 2018). Use of MAHP
trays are beneficial to retaining mushroom quality over non-
permeable packaging or no packaging at all, and the addition
of the active substance sodium chloride can greatly enhance
the benefits of MAHP. Sodium chloride laminated within a
multi-layer, perforated polymeric film helped prevent moisture
loss in mushrooms without excess condensation (Rux et al.,
2015). It was also found that the use of ethylene absorbing,
gas permeable packaging film increased mango shelf life from
20 days to 40 days (McEwen, 2014).
The benefits of appropriately designed MAP, MAHP and
AP systems in maintaining the quality of fresh produce are
documented in the literature. Packaging that helps produce a
favourable storage environment is a way to help prevent fresh
produce waste and loss.
1.3.7 Consumer behaviour determining
food waste: packaging can play a role
While packaging can have its benefits in reducing food waste,
the impact of packaging combined with consumer behaviour
cannot be dismissed. Consumer choice to eat or waste food is
affected by packaging’s ability to retain freshness, packaging
size, accessibility to food within packaging, and visual
communication cues found on packaging such as traditional
date labels and colour changing freshness indicators.
Fit-for-purpose packaging that protects produce can only
be beneficial if it is kept intact.
Studies have found that many consumers
do not recognize that packaging protects
food in the home, which in turn leads many
consumers to adopt strategies that potentially
decrease the longevity of products, leading to
unnecessary waste.
This includes taking products out of their packaging or piercing
the packaging (McEwen, 2014, Plumb et al., 2013), or consumers
perceptions that unpackaged food is fresher than packaged
products (Fisher, 2018).
Being unable or unwilling to consume the entire food contents
inside packaging is another issue that leads to waste. For food that
is unable to be finished, portion sizes and the ability to effectively
remove food from packaging play a role. Consumers may
purchase larger packages as part of a bulk-buy cost saving
effort but be unable to finish the contents before the food spoils
or reaches the food safety date label. Packaging interventions
that may assist include packaging food into smaller individual
portions, and easily accessible packaging that is resealable
(Wikström et al., 2018, Hebrok and Heidenstrøm, 2019,
Verghese et al., 2015, Fisher, 2018).
1.3.6 MAHP and AP for
moisture control
Another benefit of MA packaging is its ability to regulate
humidity levels to prevent dehydration of produce (McEwen,
2014, Zagory and Kader, 1988). Water loss in produce is
caused by high transpiration rates where the effects are
cumulative down the supply chain from the point of harvest,
pre-cooling, storage and transport to the point of use (Ansah
et al., 2018). Water loss is a main cause of commercial and
physiological deterioration of fresh produce in the form of
wilting, shrivelling, and decrease of stiffness, turgidity and
succulence (Rodov et al., 2019, Ansah et al., 2018). These
are all factors that can result in food waste and loss.
Papaya fruit stored in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) MA bags
experienced less weight loss from water reduction. It also found
that the use of polyethylene MA bags retarded the consumption
of respiratory substrates such as sugars. The positive quality
maintenance effects of the packaging systems were amplified
when combined with evaporative cooled storage as opposed
to ambient conditions (Azene et al., 2014). The benefits of MA
packaging combined with low storage temperatures has also
been documented for fresh cut cauliflower (Madonna et al., 2018).
Permeability ratios of MA film packaging must also be calculated
so that appropriate humidity is maintained for the specific produce
stored within (Jalali et al., 2019, Jalali et al., 2017). For example,
a film perforation surface ratio of between 5%-15% helps prevent
moisture condensation in lettuce packaging without the excessive
produce weight loss (Volpe et al., 2018).
While water loss is a factor in wasted fresh produce, excessive
humidity can also be detrimental (Jalali et al., 2019, Jalali et al.,
2017). Trapped condensation inside packaging can accelerate
spoilage and considerably shorten shelf life of fresh produce.
Modified Atmosphere and Humidity Packaging (MAHP) and
Active Packaging (AP) systems can assist by regulating
humidity. MAHP systems rely on permeable polymeric films
to regulate moisture (Jalali et al., 2019, Jalali et al., 2017).
On the other hand, AP systems rely on the addition of active
substances that regulate moisture, for example moisture
absorbers (Gaona-Forero et al., 2018).
Easily perishable fruits, such as berries, have benefited from
the use of MAHP packaging. Studies by Jalali et al. (2019) and
Jalali et al. (2017) demonstrate that 400g punnet of strawberries
lost less than 0.3% in fruit mass when stored in a MAHP film
packaging with 0.8 diameter perforations under 15°C ambient
temperatures. Other studies confirm the benefits of MAHP and
MAP in maintaining the shelf quality of strawberries (Bovi et al.,
2018, White and Stanmore, 2018).
In some cases, the MAHP and AP systems may be combined
with favourable results. Mushrooms are especially prone to high
transpiration rates, resulting in rapid weight loss and the risk of
water condensation inside the package, resulting in accelerated
deterioration and decay (Rux et al., 2015, White and Stanmore,
2018). Mushrooms stored unpackaged in the fridge became
desiccated after 11 days but were still considered edible.

1.3.8 It’s a wrap: Packaging effects
summary for fresh produce waste
and loss
The beneficial effects of packaging on fresh
produce waste and loss cannot be ignored.
Packaging can extend the shelf life of produce
if it is tailored to the needs of the fresh
produce type.
Packaging that encourages unfavourable storage environments
leads to spoilage of fresh produce. It should also be noted that,
apart from suitable packaging, maintaining an appropriate
storage temperature is key where cold environments are
favourable to longer shelf life.
Packaging can also communicate to consumers
if food is fit to eat, thereby preventing good food
from being thrown out.
The proportion of packaging compared to food product, and
potential waste with no packaging, should also be considered
regarding respective environmental impacts. Other consumer
related behaviour should also be considered – such as the
detrimental effect of protective packaging being removed,
importance of perceived freshness and clear communication
on edibility. The literature supports the principle that
appropriately designed packaging plays a role in preventing
fresh produce waste and loss. Additional research is needed
to fill knowledge gaps on the food waste effects of packaging
versus no packaging.
For fresh produce that consumers are unwilling to finish,
packaging’s role in retaining freshness plays a part. A case
study of bread in Norway showed that consumers were least
likely to eat bread that they perceived as un-fresh. Therefore,
packaging that prevented bread from going stale for longer
facilitated the consumption of the entire loaf, thereby minimising
food waste (Svanes et al., 2018). Similarly, use of packaging to
divide food into smaller portions can increase food’s utilisation
better than larger packs of food items, because these smaller
portions will keep the food aesthetically appealing and fresh
(Hebrok and Heidenstrøm, 2019).
Date labelling can also affect perceived freshness. “Best Before”
and “Use By” dates are the standard industry approach for
packaged foods. Food that has passed the “Use By” date
for guaranteed food safety is acceptable to throw out, but
some consumers hesitate to consume food that has passed
its “Best Before” date – an indicator for food quality but not
safety. It should also be noted that dates are often conservative
to minimise risks from consuming spoiled food, leading to
reduced effective shelf life and increased consumer disposal
of food. The issues surrounding date labelling and its effect on
food waste is well documented in the literature (Blomfield, 2019,
Poyatos-Racionero et al., 2018, Verghese et al., 2015, Lipinski
et al., 2013, Pink, 2016).
Visual information is often relied upon for determining the
quality and perceived freshness of fresh produce, influencing
the decision as to whether it should be eaten or thrown out.
Intelligent packaging systems could reduce the amount
of food being thrown out due to uncertain judgment and
assessment of produce quality. Intelligent packaging systems
monitor and communicate the quality of produce in real-
time, making it easy to quickly and effectively judge if food
is fit for consumption, for example if food is contaminated by
pathogenic microbes (Francis et al., 2012). Systems include
RFID tags, time-temperature indicators, integrity indicators, and
colour-changing freshness indicators (Poyatos-Racionero et al.,
2018, Dirpan et al., 2018, Sachdev et al., 2016, Kuswandi et al.,
2013). Intelligent packaging systems are common for protein
products, but recent literature shows that use of such systems
is expanding to fresh fruits and vegetables. Colour changing
freshness indicator stickers have been used for guavas
(Kuswandi et al., 2013), mangos (Dirpan et al., 2018) and
onions (Sachdev et al., 2016) to detect postharvest spoilage.
The stickers are attached to the packaging to detect the
build-up of certain respiratory gasses.
Intelligent packaging systems can provide reliable, real-time
visual cues to indicate if produce is fresh or spoiled, therefore
reducing unnecessary wastage of food (Poyatos-Racionero et
al., 2018, Kuswandi et al., 2013). While packaging systems can
reduce food waste, it is important that consumer behaviour also
be considered.

2.0
Project scope

Table 3 presents the 10 fresh produce categories, related packaging sizes, and associated packaging formats/materials that were
selected for investigation in this project. These categories were identified and selected by members of the Australian Fresh Produce
Alliance (AFPA).
Table 3 Fresh produce categories investigated in the study
Produce Packaging size Packaging format/ material reviewed
Tomatoes (small snack pack) 200 grams Punnet – PET
Mushrooms (cup sliced) 200 grams Punnet – PET
Raspberries 125 grams Punnet – PET
Blueberries 125 grams Punnet – PET
Leafy Salad Various Various
Cucumbers (small pack) 250 grams Punnet with BOPP flow wrap – PET
Cos Lettuce (twin pack) Twin pack Pre-pack flow wrap – BOPP
Banana (kids pack) 750 grams LLDPE flow wrap
Apples Various Various
Pears Various Various
Note: Materials: PET – Polyethylene terephthalate; BOPP – Biaxially orientated polypropylene; LLDPE – Linear low-density polyethylene;
2.0 Project scope

3.0
Project
methodology

Table 4 presents the different types of data that were collected
and used for each produce category. The following sub-sections
provide details of these methods that were undertaken at each
stage of this project, along with how data were used.
Table 4: Research data used in the study
Fresh Produce Life cycle mapping
Email/
phone data
Company
documents
Interviews
conducted
Lab sensory
observations
Tomatoes (small snack pack) Yes Yes 3 Yes
Mushrooms (cup sliced) Yes Yes 3 Yes
Raspberries Yes Yes 3 Yes
Blueberries Yes Yes 3 Yes
Leafy Salad Yes Yes 3 No
Cucumbers (small pack) Yes No 3 Yes
Cos Lettuce (twin pack) Yes Yes 3 Yes
Banana (kids pack) Yes No 4 Yes
Apples Yes Yes 3 No
Pears Yes No 3 No
To understand the role that packaging fulfils in minimising food
waste, and maximising quality for fresh produce, this project
was divided into 2 main stages:
• Life cycle mapping (including food waste), and
• Laboratory observations of fresh produce sensory aspects.
3.1 Life cycle mapping
To map each fresh produce category life cycle, we analysed
and compared various related data (Tracy, 2010). Combining
the different data sources (summarized in Table 4) we developed
descriptive analyses of each life cycle, as well as a diagram
capturing packaging, storage, and food waste dimensions
of each stage of the supply chain.
The descriptive analysis was firstly developed using secondary
data from each supply chain, such as internal company
documents, correspondence with stakeholders, and literature
(Coghlan and Shani, 2014, MacInnis, 2011). For example,
supply chain diagrams, sensory testing reports and emails
supplied by producers were compared to try and explain
what happened for each produce life cycle. Following Coghlan
and Shani (2014) we connected data to develop a written
reflection of what packaging was used; what were typical
produce shelf lives; as well as what the impact of packaging
was on food waste.
Our explanations remained incomplete by only looking at
these secondary data. Hence, semi-structured interviews
were carried out by the research team (Brinkmann, 2018).
For instance reports and internal testing were lacking specific
causes of food waste in the supply chain, which interviews
helped to clarify more specifically. Ethics is relevant as to how
a researcher relates to people participating in research. Ethics
for qualitative research acknowledges the relative aspects
between humans, their interactions within, and understandings
about the world (Christians, 2018). How a researcher interacts
with research participants and relevant data is then framed by
that ethical view. Research ethics approval was sought from
RMIT University on that basis and approved. A plain language
statement was developed to provide a clear explanation
of the research to potential external interview participants.
The statement explained what the research was about, how
their data would be used, and measures to protect data.
It also described their rights as a participant during and after
the research was conducted. Procedures from the ethics
application regarding participant rights and data were applied.
A total of 29 semi-structured interviews (with 31 interviewees)
were conducted, and this was judged as providing sufficient
data to explain each of the life cycles under study. Interviews
were conducted on the phone averaging 45 minutes, between
December 2018 and February 2019. Interviewees were
selected to represent the range of stakeholder knowledge
and perspectives within the respective fresh produce supply
chains (see Table 3). They included farm personnel, packing
shed managers, logistics managers, packaging technologists,
brand managers, and retailers. Interviews were mostly recorded
(for those who granted permission), then transcribed via,
the online transcription service, Rev. Hand notes were also
taken, and a summary report prepared for each interview.
When an interviewee did not want to be recorded, hand notes
were used to capture the data from the interview. These data
were then used with other secondary data to further develop
our descriptive and visual life cycle maps for each fresh
produce category.
3.0 Project methodology

A member checking measure verified that what had been
synthesised aligned with research participant recollections.
This avoided conflict, as participants made suggestions
on where understanding may have differed from theirs.
As directed by the producers, the scope of the life cycle stages
that were included in the project were from farming, harvesting,
packing, transport, through to retail sale of the fresh produce.
3.2 Laboratory testing
of fresh produce
To complement qualitative insights provided by the interviewees,
7 out of the 10 fresh produce products were provided for sensory
observations made under laboratory conditions. There was
interest from producers to observe the laboratory samples for
sensory aspects, as it can relate to shelf life. Sensory aspects
relate to dimensions that consumers ‘sense’, such as when
they touch, see or smell a food, that may affect their decision
to purchase fresh produce, or not.
All fresh produce products were harvested by their respective
producer and packed according to the pack size and packaging
type indicated in Table 5. Representatives from each producer
organised for at least 3kg of each product to be transported
to the RMIT University Chemical Engineering Laboratory
(Melbourne, Australia) on a day representative of when each
product would typically arrive at Melbourne Distribution Centres
(DCs) for items harvested interstate or leave the farm for items
harvested in Melbourne.
Table 5: Typical packaging conditions for each fresh produce item studied for sensory observations
Produce Pack Size Packaging Type
Tomatoes (small snack pack) 200 g Punnet – PET
Mushrooms 200 g Punnet – PET
Blueberries 125 g Punnet – PET
Raspberries 125 g Punnet – PET
Cucumber (small pack) 250 g Punnet with BOPP flow wrap – PET
Cos Lettuce (twin pack) Twin pack Pre-pack flow wrap – BOPP
Banana (kids pack) 750 g LLDPE flow wrap
Note: Materials: PET – Polyethylene terephthalate; BOPP – Biaxially orientated polypropylene; LLDPE – Linear low-density polyethylene
Quotes captured from interviewees were included in our
descriptive analysis, complementing secondary data used
throughout the life cycle mapping. A multi-vocal quality then
developed in our account as described by Taylor and Lindlof
(2002). The accounts were therefore ‘narrated’ by multiple
people within the selected fresh produce supply chains,
documenting what they experienced occurring. Individual
perspectives provided richness to our account of life cycles
that would have been difficult with only secondary data.
As a range of both interviewee and researcher views were present
through the research, reflexivity was required. As Tracy (2010)
suggested, self-reflexivity is applied to make sense of what
is occurring, including the role the researcher plays. For all
interviews, reflexivity was key to separate what the researcher
said or asked, what the researcher sensed, what interviewees
said, and then what that all meant. Thus, as we developed
our descriptions of the life cycles, we had multiple people from
the research team work through the separate interview data to
determine whether what we had documented collectively made
sense. Thus we applied a measure that ensured what had been
heard, recorded and sensed aligned between researchers and
interviewees (Taylor and Lindlof, 2002).
Finally, we applied a key method throughout the qualitative
research to verify results. We drew on member reflections
to check what data we had collected and then synthesised.
Member checking is applied by “taking findings back to the
field and determining whether the participants recognise
them as true or accurate” (Taylor and Lindlof, 2002 p. 242).
We sought reviews of our work by providing draft reports to
participating research partners and between researchers.
3.0 Project methodology continued

Throughout storage, 1kg of each product was left in the
packaging provided by the producer and referred to as the
‘package’ condition, and 1kg was removed from the packaging
and referred to as the ‘no package’ condition. Produce with
no package were placed in bulk aluminium trays throughout
storage, with the exception being mushrooms which were
stored in bulk in a cardboard box (at request of the producer’s
Representative), as this is the producer’s current non-plastic
packaging alternative.
Table 6: Produce storage conditions as advised by producer representatives
Produce Storage Length Storage Temperature (°Celsius)
Tomatoes (small snack pack) 3 days 12°C
Mushrooms 4 days 2 days 1-4°C, 2 days 6-8°C
Blueberries 3 days 1-4°C
Raspberries 3 days 1-4°C
Cucumber (small pack) 4 days 12-14°C
Cos Lettuce (twin pack) 3 days 1-4°C
Banana (kids pack) 3 days 12-14°C
Note: Storage length representative of time between produce leaving DCs or farms and “point of purchase” for consumers at the retailer.
Upon arrival at RMIT University, 1kg of each product was
segregated for immediate observations. Thus, this time point
was indicative of each product’s sensory profile at ‘baseline’
(Day 0).
Representatives from each fresh producer advised on the
storage conditions (temperature in degrees Celsius and length in
days) that each product would typically be exposed to between
leaving the Distribution Centre (DC) or farm and being available
for purchase by consumers at a retailer (Table 6). These storage
conditions were then simulated at RMIT University for the
remaining 2kg of each product.
Produce was delivered to the laboratory and sorted into
storage conditions described in Table 5 and Table 6. Fruit
and vegetables were evaluated by an individual researcher on
2 separate days, once when they first arrived from the distributor
(baseline), and then 3 or 4 days later (day of purchase as per
Table 6). Each product was rated on its appearance and aroma,
with specific attributes being selected for each product (Table 7).
Photographs were also taken of the fresh produce under each
storage condition and at baseline and day of purchase, using
a digital camera (Nikon Coolpix L840).
At baseline and day of purchase, the assessor observed and
evaluated the fruit and vegetables in packaged storage and no
package storage. The assessor rated each product by making
a mark on a 150mm Visual Analogue Scale ranging from ‘not
very…’ to ‘very…’ (depending on the specific attributes of
each product as outlined in Table 7). To determine the rated
value of each product, the marking was measured from zero
to where the mark had been made by the assessor; the scores
ranged from 0 = ‘not very…’ to 15 = ‘very…’. The assessor
also provided open-ended general comments about the look,
feel and aroma of each of the products.

Table 7: Sensory attributes used to evaluate products at baseline and day of purchase
Produce Sensory attributes Scale anchors
Blueberries Plumpness
Bloom
Wrinkle (of skin)
Bruising
Aroma
Not very plump to very plump
No bloom to lots of bloom
Not very wrinkly to very wrinkly
No bruising to lots of bruising
No off aroma to off aroma
Lettuce Crispness
Limpness
Sliminess
Colour
Aroma
Not very crisp to very crisp
Not very limp to very limp
Not very slimy to very slimy
Manky green to fresh green
Mushrooms Firmness
Blemishes
Sliminess
White colour
Aroma
Not very firm to very firm
No blemishes to lots of blemishes
Not very slimy to very slimy
Dull white to bright white
Raspberries Red colour
Firmness
Collapsibility
Aroma
Dark/dull red to bright red
Collapses easily to hold its shape
Tomatoes Evenness of colour
Firmness
Wrinkle (of skin)
Aroma
Patchy colour to full colour
Cucumbers Crispness
Firmness
Wrinkle (of skin)
Green colour
Aroma
Not very crisp to very crisp
Uneven green colour to even green colour
Bananas Yellowness
Firmness
Blemishes
Splitting
Ripe aroma
Green/yellow to dark brown/yellow
No blemishes to lots of blemishes
No splits to split
Not very ripe to overripe
3.3 Peer review
A peer review was undertaken by Dr Lilly DaGama, and expert in
food waste and supply chains from Portsmouth Business School
at University of Portsmouth. Lilly’s suggestions are included in
Appendix A, along with the responses from the research team
and changes that were subsequently implemented.

4.0
Results

Figure 4: Packaged tomatoes (Small snack pack)
4.1.1 Life cycle mapping
The assembled tomato product life cycle, with details on shelf
life and waste aspects, including in relation to packaging, are
visualised in Figure 5.
In this section the life cycle mapping of the fresh produce
categories are presented. Data gathered during the stakeholder
interviews and secondary data collection are presented to
summarise the life cycle mapping of each fresh produce category,
and the role of packaging on food waste. Data gathered from
the interviews on the role of packaging of fresh produce are
also presented. Anecdotal laboratory observations of sensory
aspects of the fresh produce tested is also provided.
4.1 Tomatoes (Small snack pack)
There are a wide variety of tomato products and species that
are grown in Australia. After harvesting, some are packaged as
loose or on the vine, into cardboard boxes ready for transportation
to market. While the remaining varieties of tomatoes are
packed into a variety of primary plastic or cardboard pre-packs
(retail packaging). Truss tomatoes can be flow wrapped (with
5 tomatoes onto a plastic tray) as well as in larger cardboard
cartons; snacking tomatoes into plastic clamshell punnets
as per Figure 4, and cocktail tomatoes in heat-sealed punnets
with a plastic base.
4.0 Results
Growing product
hydroponically
over an 11 month
growing season
Growth
Majority is grown
in glasshouse in
25-28°C ambient
temperature
Storage
Food Waste
• Extreme Weather
and temperature
events
• Insects and
diseases
• If produce does
not meet 2nds
specification
thrown in the bin
(Interview data)
Picked at ambient
temperatures into trays.
Fruit is kept in the
glasshouse for 20
to 40 minutes and
transported to packing
shed in less than
an hour
Harvest
Picked at 25-28°C,
then stored in 12°C
between 12-48 hours
in packing sheds.
Takes about 5 hours
to cool within
1°C of 12°C
Storage
Food Waste
• Yield Losses
• Product not to spec
• Supply and Demand
in the market
• Labour management
and training
(Interview data)
Fruit is packed into
punnets, stacked into
trays and then stacked
onto pallets
Packing
The packed fruit is
stored in a cool room
at 12°C ambient
temperature for up
to 24 hours
Storage
Food Waste
• Pack to order
vs pick n pack
• Mould in flow wrap
• Consistency of
cooling between
packing storages
(Interview data)
24 – 28 days snacking tomatoes
(3 days average purchase from packing)
The packed fruit
is transferred to
a customer DC.
The journey will
take from 6 hours
to 4 days depending
on the destination
Transport
The packed fruit is
delivered into a
customer cool room
with ambient temp
of approximately 5°C
Storage
Food Waste
• Cold chain errors
in transport
(Interview data,
packaging related)
Product either stocked
loosely in trays, or
in pre packs on shelf.
Retail
Usually stored on
shelf in ambient
store conditions
Storage
Food Waste
• Major defect
criteria include
cracks, cuts splits,
rot, breakdown,
pest damage,
dehydration and
bacterial spots
(Interview data,
packaging related)
Shelf Life
Data from documents and interviews
Figure 5: Tomatoes life cycle map

“You always want to cool your product as
quickly as you possibly can to the ideal
temperature. The longer it stays hot for,
the more gas it can release. And the more
the product will degrade and start to break
down. That’s just part of the ripening process.
Temperature control is a really important factor.
So, essentially, we need to get the product as
cool as possible, and pack it and distribute
it as quickly as we possibly can.“
Tomatoes Interviewee 1
The standard shelf-life varies – the smaller the tomato the longer
the shelf life. On average a large truss tomato will last 14 days
(can often be in a cardboard tray when sold in bulk). The smaller
snacking tomatoes may last up to twice as long, (i.e. up to
28 days).
Tomato producers have been actively refining their packaging
materials to maximize shelf life for some time. Plastics have
become the preferred packaging material as they have
demonstrated better shelf life outcomes from farm to plate
compared to cardboard packaging materials. Cardboard
materials absorb moisture from the tomatoes, dehydrating them
and reducing their quality over their shelf life. Some producers
are moving toward bio-degradable plastic packaging, with this
also being promoted by supermarkets based on customer
demand for more sustainable packaging.
The model suggested by the tomato producer as the normal
time of purchase was 3 days from distribution to the retailer,
with the produce kept at 12°C.
Growers work closely with retailers and other buyers to select
preferred varieties and forecast market demand. Tomatoes are
grown in indoor hydroponic glasshouse facilities, at 28° as an
ideal temperature with a fruiting period of 11 months. The plants
are pollinated by hand as well as raised and lowered by workers
as the plant grows up to 35km over its life. Over the optimum
growth period, around 9 months of the fruiting period, picking
is performed twice a week.
After picking (harvesting) the tomatoes are sent to a grading
table and then on to trolleys to be transported to the packing
shed. There they are graded again to further remove misshaped
or out of specification fruit. From there the tomatoes are packed
into their specific packaging which changes between varieties.
Some varieties are packed into PET clamshell punnets, or flow
wrapped with a PET tray, while some are packed loose into
varnished cardboard boxes.
In the tomato supply chain, there is a significant focus on
cold chain management post-harvest, meaning it is highly
engineered and closely monitored by producers and retailers.
Tomatoes are picked during the day off the vine at around 25°
and need to be cooled down to a range of between 10-16°
as soon as possible and kept that way. In modern facilities
this process is streamlined, and the exposure of tomatoes
to ambient temperatures is minimised.
From the cool room the tomatoes are packed into a refrigerated
truck and sent to retail DCs. Distribution is governed by demand
which can fluctuate from week to week.
4.1.2 Shelf life expectancy with
and without packaging
It is important to get tomatoes packed, cooled and shipped as
quickly as possible to maximise shelf life. The optimal temperature
is 12°, but the supply chain allows for and works within a range
of 10-16°. Cooling reduces the amount of ethylene released
and therefore the ripening process, where too much cooling
can stop the ripening process. The tomatoes are picked,
packed and shipped with an optimal ripening time in mind –
and can suffer from chill damage when warming up.
4.0 Results continued

From the retail perspective, packaging is optimized around
consumer desirability, convenience and choice. With these
goals in mind, retailers have promoted pre-packed tomato
products to the consumer. Plastic packaging has been very
successful in improving shelf life for producers, including
limiting consumer access to touch/handle the produce which
can cause bruising and other blemishes. Packaging is also
effective at keeping foreign objects out, whereas product
packed loosely in a tray, or without wrapping or in containers,
tend to deteriorate faster. While these products have enjoyed
market success, some consumers have said they either don’t
want plastics or they want to see a reduction in plastic in the
fresh produce aisle. This response has resulted in packaging
specialists from producers and retailers experimenting with
bio-degradable packaging with the intention to utilise such
packaging in the future as the technology matures.
The biggest challenge with packaging tomatoes is managing
respiration and ethylene levels over the shelf life of the pack.
As the tomatoes ripen they respire, and release ethylene gas.
Packaging design must account for this by having enough
holes in it to allow the fruit to breathe. Incorrect packaging
has resulted in rejections in the past.
4.1.4 Impact of packaging on sensory aspects
There were no differences between the packaged and
no package tomatoes at baseline for any of the attributes
including colour, firmness, wrinkle (of skin) and aroma (Table 8
and Figure 6). There was also no difference in aroma at day of
purchase between the packaged and no package tomatoes
and only a very small decline in this attribute from baseline
to day of purchase. The amount of wrinkle of the skin did
increase slightly compared to baseline for the packaged and
no package tomatoes, with the no package increasing slightly
more. Even though this did increase, it was still rated low at day
of purchase. The firmness of the packaged and no package
tomatoes both declined from baseline to day of purchase, with
the no package variety becoming less firm compared to the
packaged tomatoes at day of purchase. The patchiness of the
colour also changed from baseline to day of purchase, with the
packaged tomatoes becoming patchier in colour, whilst the no
package tomatoes were rated as less patchy and fuller in colour
compared to baseline and the packaged tomatoes (Table 8).
on food waste
Our expert interviewees all agreed that packaging reduces food
waste in the tomato supply chain. Packaging is important from
when the fruit is picked, graded and packed on the farm up until
when the customer purchases them off the shelf.
Producers are financially incentivized to maximize high grade
produce and therefore are focused on mitigating rejections
for fruit that is out of specification. Packaging is used to preserve
the quality standard for high grade produce required by
supermarket specifications.
Producers are obligated to manage the fruit from the farm
to the retailer DC, meaning their packaging and cold chain
systems are highly optimized to meet this goal. Without this in
place, it can lead to a high level of wastage on the farm from
crops not meeting quality standards. There can be issues with
growing conditions due to the weather, agronomic problems,
blossoming rot, size (too big or small), look and colour (too
green or red). Produce that can’t be downgraded and sold to
the secondary market is either disposed of as waste to landfill
or donated to food charities, such as Foodbank.
This wastage during harvest can be compounded by market
demand which can fluctuate on a weekly basis. Changes to
orders can on occasion mean that;
“…the fruit doesn’t get packed, it will then age.
When it ages, it reduces shelf life, and then it
degrades to waste.”
Tomatoes Interviewee 2
Fruit that stays longer in the producer’s cool room is aging and
deteriorating – thus producers have to remove already ripe fruit
before shipping to retail DCs and can lose some of this produce
as waste as a result.
Produce can be rejected by supermarkets due to cold chain
errors in transport. There is an opportunity to donate rejected
fruit to food rescue organisations, and absorb the extra
transports costs, rather than repacking and de-branding it to
sell to secondary markets. Some producers already do this.
Table 8: Assessor’s ratings of the packaged and no package tomatoes at baseline and day of purchase
for each attribute
Attribute Baseline Day of purchase
Packaged No package Packaged No package
Colour (patchy) 4.9 4.9 3.0 6.7
Firmness 12.5 12.5 9.5 8.8
Wrinkle 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.6
Off aromas 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1

4.2 Mushrooms (Cup)
The mushrooms under study were common, white-cup (agaricus
bisporus) mushrooms. They can be sold whole or sliced and
packaged in PET punnets with a plastic wrap as per Figure
8. Whole mushrooms are also sold loose and packaged in
corrugated cartons.
Figure 8: Packaged mushrooms
The assembled mushroom product life cycle, with details on
shelf life and waste aspects, including in relation to packaging,
are visualised in Figure 9.
From the descriptive data, the packaged and no package
tomatoes were both rated the same at baseline, which included
being very firm, and somewhat uneven in colour with no
wrinkles or cracks. At day of purchase, the no package
tomatoes were described as being fuller in colour compared
to the packaged tomatoes which were still uneven in colour
(Figure 7). The no package tomatoes were softer to touch
compared to the packaged tomatoes and had more bruising
or dents present compared to the packaged tomatoes. When
cut, the no package tomatoes seemed riper compared to the
packaged tomatoes which were paler inside.
Figure 6: Packaged and no package tomatoes (respectively) at baseline
Figure 7: Packaged and no package tomatoes (respectively) at day of purchase

Mushroom cultivation
is a high volume
cycle of composting,
spawning, growing and
harvesting commercial
mushroom variants
Growth
All plant media
and packaging
sterilized to prevent
contamination
Storage
Food Waste
Waste from pests,
growing conditions
(non uniformity),
and compost
mix unbalance.
(Interview data).
Harvesting is
done in Flushes.
The mushrooms grow
for 13 days then they
are picked and then
again 10 days later
Harvest
Cooled from 18°C to
2°C using vacuum
chiller technology
Storage
Food Waste
Waste when the
chogs are removed
(Interview data).
Whole Mushrooms
packed into PET
punnets with plastic
wrap or loose. Sliced
mushrooms into PET
punnets with wrap
or plastic wrapped
Packing
Separated into
whole and cut
sections. Whole
mushrooms bagged.
Storage
Food Waste
Rejections when out
of specification or
from contamination
(Interview data)
Whole Mushrooms 4-7 days
(4 days average purchase from packing)
Maintain cold
chain from pack
house to DC
Transport
Cold chain
maintained at 2°C
Storage
Food Waste
Thermal snowballing
if placed incorrectly in
truck (Interview data,
packaging related)
Products displayed
in open fresh
produce aisle
Retail
If stored at ambient
temperature, shelf life
is reduced
Storage
Food Waste
Bruised or damaged
product (Interview
data, packaging
related)
Shelf Life
Data from interviews
Figure 9: Mushrooms life cycle map
The mushrooms are tested and catalogued during all stages
to make sure there is no risk of microbiological contamination.
The cold chain is highly optimized due to a short shelf life.
Australia needs sophisticated cold chain technology because
of the long geographical distances produce must travel.
The mushrooms are kept at a low temperature from harvest
to delivery to DCs. They are picked at 18°C and cooled to 2°C
within 60 minutes of harvest.
Reducing the respiration rate to slow the rate of degradation
of mushrooms is also key. If mushrooms get warmer than
8°C they decline in quality and shelf life rapidly. Growers use
‘vacuum chiller’ technology to cool mushrooms to 2°C. Vacuum
chilling is ideal for mushrooms as they are 92 – 93% water with
no skin. They lose 2-3% water when chilled.
Mushrooms are grown indoors with the most common production
method involving the use of vertical shelves or large wooden
growing trays. Their growth phase is rapid, doubling in size
every 24 hours, with a single stand-alone facility producing
millions of individual mushrooms every week of the year.
Mushroom production involves a constant cycle of compost
preparation, spawn, growth and harvest. Cycles can last
between 30 – 150 days (involving what are called several
‘flushes’), depending on the species and growing techniques.
Harvesting is performed in flushes, and over the first 10 – 12 days
the mushrooms are not visible. Over the 12 – 15 days period
they grow rapidly in size and are picked. They then regrow
and are picked around 10 days later in the second flush.
From the harvesting area, mushrooms are either placed in PET
punnets (with a plastic overwrap with perforations) or loose in
recyclable corrugated cardboard boxes before the produce is
sent to the pre-packaging area. Some mushrooms go through
a slicing process for the pre-cut product to be packaged in
plastic punnets and film.

on food waste
Packaging has played an important role for mushrooms in
preserving the moisture content and preventing bruising from
farm to the shelf. Growers and retailers have been very focused
on reducing the wastage of their 1st grade product so their
processes are highly streamlined.
Retail specifications require the chog (the mushroom stem) be
no longer than 1/3 the length of the cap requiring its removal.
In the past, a big challenge in the mushroom supply chain was
transportation from the grower to the retail DCs. Inconsistent
cooling leads to an unacceptable level of rejections at the DCs.
Producers engaged with transport companies to monitor and
improve their operations, with the positioning of the packaged
mushrooms in the refrigerated vehicle identified as a critical
issue. If the mushrooms are placed too high they might freeze
and if they are placed in the middle they can heat up and create
a thermal snowball, a phenomenon that causes the mushrooms
to continue to heat up over time. Sliced mushrooms are
particularly susceptible because they heat up when sliced
in the packaging stage as well as the increased surface
area compared to whole cap mushrooms.
4.2.4 Impact of packaging on sensory aspects
(whole mushrooms)
There were no differences at baseline between the packaged
and no package mushrooms (whole variety) for firmness,
blemishes, colour or aroma (Table 9 and Figure 10). There was
a slight difference in the sliminess rating, with the packaged
mushrooms being rated slightly slimier than the no package
mushrooms, however this was minimal. Both firmness and
white colour declined from baseline to day of purchase.
In addition, there was no difference in the firmness of the
packaged and no package mushrooms at day of purchase.
However, there was a slight difference in the white colour at
the day of purchase of the mushrooms, with the packaged
mushrooms being slightly whiter than the no package. The off
aroma of the mushrooms increased very slightly from baseline
to day of purchase, however this was minimal and there were
no differences between packaged and no package mushrooms
at day of purchase. The sliminess and blemishes ratings did
increase from baseline to day of purchase for both packaged
and no package mushrooms. In both cases, the no package
mushrooms were rated higher, having more blemishes, and
sliminess (Table 9).
4.2.2 Shelf life expectancy with and without packaging
Food waste can be generated when consumers reject an item
of produce perceived to be of low quality. Therefore, extending
the shelf life and protecting the produce is paramount in the
growing, distribution and selling of mushrooms.
“…It promotes healthy eating. So, we’re
preserving the product. (With packaging)
we’re getting better quality when it sits on
the shelf. And, we’re trying to drive Australians
to eat healthy. “
Mushroom Interviewee 2
Passive modified atmosphere packaging has been developed,
specifically to match the respiration rates of different types of
mushrooms. This involves a perforated PET punnet with holes
sized to maximize shelf life.
“So, if we’re preserving the shelf life of the
product and maintaining the quality for longer,
then, really, in essence, we’re maintaining or
preserving the nutrition value of that product.”
Mushroom Interviewee 2
Producers are actively prototyping what are perceived as
environmentally friendly packaging alternatives but have found
that their PET punnets are still performing better.
In past tests, an interviewed producer developed a clam shell
packaging with large holes in it for their mushroom product.
This was developed because it protected the mushrooms
by reducing bruising, while stacking them on top of each
other. This packaging failed because it didn’t deal with the
respiration rate of the mushrooms. The clamshells worked
well mechanically, but they reduced the shelf life to 5 days
due to the respiration issues. The product was removed
from further sale due to underperformance on shelf life.

Figure 10: Packaged and no package mushrooms (respectively) at baseline
When observing the mushrooms, it was noted that there was
moisture present at the bottom of the packaged mushrooms
and there was some slight browning on the bottom, compared
to no moisture on the no package mushrooms. The amount
of moisture increased in the packaged mushrooms at day of
purchase, and some mushrooms had water droplets on them.
At day of purchase, the no package mushrooms had turned
browner in colour compared to the packaged mushrooms and
had a greater number of blemishes (Figure 11). There were no
observable differences between the packaged and no package
mushrooms when they were cut, both were reported to be firm
to cut.
Figure 11: Packaged and no package mushrooms (respectively) at day of purchase
4.3 Raspberries and blueberries
The primary type of packaging for berries is a PET clamshell
punnet – with sufficient ventilation for the product. A normal
punnet size, is 125g for blueberries and raspberries and was
the packaging format reviewed in this study as per Figure 12.
There are 12 punnets that are packed onto a cardboard tray
and then, in turn palletised for shipping.
Figure 12: Packaged blueberries and raspberries
The assembled berry product life cycle, with details on shelf
life and waste aspects, including in relation to packaging, are
visualised in Figure 13.
Table 9: Assessor’s ratings of the packaged and no package mushrooms at baseline and day of purchase
for each attribute
Attribute Baseline Day of purchase
Packaged No package Packaged No package
Firmness 12.7 12.7 10.0 10.0
Blemishes 3.2 3.2 4.4 8.1
Sliminess 2.1 1.5 4.6 6.5
White colour 12.4 12.4 9.6 8.1
Off aromas 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0

The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce

Semelhante a The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce (20)

Mais de Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA

Mais de Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA (20)

Último

Último (20)

The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce